1 

Interpretation of Article 17 Bis of the 

US-EU Air Transport Agreement 

Article 17 bis of the Air Transport Agreement Between the United States of America and the European 

Community and Its Member States does not provide an independent basis upon which the United 

States may deny a permit to an air carrier of a Party to the Agreement if that carrier is otherwise 

qualified to receive such a permit. 

April 14, 2016 

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

You have asked whether Article 17 bis of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Member 

States, signed on April 25 and 30, 2007, as amended (the “Agreement”), provides 

an independent basis upon which the United States may deny an air carrier of the 

European Union a permit to provide foreign air transportation services to and from 

the United States, assuming that the carrier is otherwise qualified to receive such a 

permit under Department of Transportation (“DOT” or “Department”) authorities 

and the Agreement.1

 You have indicated that, in your view, Article 17 bis does not 

provide such an independent basis for denying a permit. See Letter for Karl R. 

Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 

from Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel, Department of Transportation, Re: 

DOT Legal Analysis of Article 17 bis of the U.S.-EU Aviation Agreement (Mar. 17, 

2016) (“DOT Legal Analysis”). And the Department of State (“State Department” 

or “State”) has indicated that it agrees with your conclusion. See Letter for Karl 

Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 

from Brian J. Egan, Legal Adviser, Department of State (Apr. 13, 2016) (“State 

Legal Analysis”). Nonetheless, because this question is important to the Department and likely to recur, the Secretary of Transportation asked you to solicit our 

opinion. See Letter for Karl R. Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel, 

Department of Transportation, Re: Interpretation of Article 17 bis of the US-EU 

Aviation Agreement at 1 (Mar. 11, 2016). 

 1

 The agreement between the Parties was initially signed in 2007. See Air Transport Agreement 

Between the United States of America and the European Community and Its Member States, Apr. 25–

30, 2007, 46 I.L.M. 470 (“2007 ATA”). In 2010, this agreement was amended by the Protocol to 

Amend the Air Transport Agreement Between the United States of America and the European 

Community and Its Member States, Signed on April 25 and 30, 2007, June 24, 2010, 2010 O.J. 

(L 223) 3 (“2010 Protocol”). References in this opinion to the “Agreement” are to the 2007 ATA, as 

amended by the 2010 Protocol. References to the 2007 ATA and the 2010 Protocol are to those specific 

documents. 
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 40 

2 

We note at the outset the limited nature of your question. You have not asked 

for our views on the propriety of granting a permit to any particular foreign air 

carrier, and we do not express any views on that subject. Although you have 

advised us that there are ongoing permitting proceedings related to applications by 

Norwegian Air International and Norwegian UK, two foreign air carriers that seek 

to provide services under the Agreement, we express no view on whether the 

Secretary should or should not grant those carriers any relevant permits. We are 

also aware that DOT has various domestic authorities under which it evaluates 

permit applications. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. §§ 41301 et seq. You have asked us to 

assume that the requirements for granting a permit under these authorities have 

been satisfied, and we are not aware of any additional United States authorities 

that would be relevant to granting such a permit. The question we address is thus 

limited to interpreting the Agreement. That question is: assuming an air carrier 

satisfies the relevant preconditions for a permit set forth elsewhere in the Agreement, may the Department nonetheless deny a permit application because, in its 

view, granting the permit would undermine the principles articulated in Article 17 

bis? For the reasons set forth below, we agree with DOT and State that if an air 

carrier of a Party to the Agreement is otherwise qualified to receive a permit, 

Article 17 bis does not provide an independent basis upon which the United States 

may deny the carrier’s application for a permit. 

I. 

We begin with the relevant background. In April 2007, the United States and 

the European Community and its Member States signed an Air Transport Agreement, which, among other things, sought “to build upon the framework of existing 

agreements with the goal of opening access to markets and maximizing benefits 

for consumers, airlines, labor, and communities on both sides of the Atlantic.” Air 

Transport Agreement Between the United States of America and the European 

Community and Its Member States pmbl. at 6, Apr. 25–30, 2007, 46 I.L.M. 470 

(“2007 ATA”). Under the 2007 ATA, the Parties granted certain rights to each 

other “for the conduct of international air transportation by the[ir] airlines.” 2007 

ATA art. 3.2

 These rights included “the right to fly across [the other Party’s] 

territory without landing,” “the right to make stops in [the other Party’s] territory 

for non-traffic purposes,” and, for airlines of the European Community and its 

Member States, “the right to perform international air transportation . . . from 

points behind the Member States via the Member States . . . to any point or points 

in the United States and beyond.” Id. art. 3, ¶ 1(a), (b) & (c)(ii). Article 4 of the 

2007 ATA, entitled “Authorization,” provided: 

 2

 The 2007 ATA defined “Party” as “either the United States or the European Community and its 

Member States.” 2007 ATA art. 1, ¶ 6. 
Interpretation of Article 17 Bis of the US-EU Air Transport Agreement 

3 

On receipt of applications from an airline of one Party, in the form 

and manner prescribed for operating authorizations and technical 

permissions, the other Party shall grant appropriate authorizations 

and permissions with minimum procedural delay, provided: 

(a) for a U.S. airline, substantial ownership and effective control 

of that airline are vested in the United States, U.S. nationals, or 

both, and the airline is licensed as a U.S. airline and has its principal place of business in U.S. territory; 

(b) for a Community airline, substantial ownership and effective 

control of that airline are vested in a Member State or States, nationals of such a state or states, or both, and the airline is licensed 

as a Community airline and has its principal place of business in 

the territory of the European Community; 

(c) the airline is qualified to meet the conditions prescribed under 

the laws and regulations normally applied to the operation of international air transportation by the Party considering the application or applications; and 

(d) the provisions set forth in Article 8 (Safety) and Article 9 (Security) are being maintained and administered. 

Id. art. 4. 

In order to further the “goal of continuing to open access to markets and to 

maximise benefits for consumers, airlines, labor, and communities on both sides of 

the Atlantic,” the 2007 ATA also required the Parties to start “Second Stage 

Negotiations” after provisional application of the 2007 ATA began. See id. art. 21, 

¶ 1. These Second Stage Negotiations resulted in a further agreement between the 

United States and the European Union, signed on June 24, 2010, to amend the 

2007 ATA agreement. See Protocol to Amend the Air Transport Agreement 

Between the United States of America and the European Community and Its 

Member States, Signed on April 25 and 30, 2007, June 24, 2010, 2010 O.J. 

(L 223) 3 (“2010 Protocol”).3

 Among other things, this 2010 Protocol added to the 

Agreement Article 17 bis, entitled “Social Dimension,” which provided: 

1. The Parties recognise the importance of the social dimension of 

the Agreement and the benefits that arise when open markets are 

 3

 The 2010 Protocol noted that “the European Union replaced and succeeded the European Community as a consequence of the entry into force on December 1, 2009 of the Treaty of Lisbon.” Id.

pmbl. at 4. 
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 40 

4 

accompanied by high labour standards. The opportunities created 

by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labour standards 

or the labour-related rights and principles contained in the Parties’ 

respective laws. 

2. The principles in paragraph 1 shall guide the Parties as they 

implement the Agreement, including regular consideration by the 

Joint Committee, pursuant to Article 18, of the social effects of 

the Agreement and the development of appropriate responses to 

concerns found to be legitimate. 

2010 Protocol art. 4 (adding Agreement art. 17 bis). 

The Joint Committee referenced in Article 17 bis is described in Article 18, 

which was part of the 2007 ATA and was amended by Article 5 of the 2010 

Protocol. The Committee is required to meet at least once a year “to conduct 

consultations relating to this Agreement and to review its implementation.” 

Agreement art. 18, ¶ 1. A Party may also request a meeting of the Joint Committee 

“to seek to resolve questions relating to the interpretation or application of th[e] 

Agreement.” Id. ¶ 2. The Joint Committee is tasked with reviewing “the overall 

implementation of the Agreement, including . . . any social effects of the implementation of the Agreement,” id. ¶ 3, and “develop[ing] cooperation” among the 

Parties by, among other things, “considering the social effects of the Agreement as 

it is implemented and developing appropriate responses to concerns found to be 

legitimate,” id. ¶ 4(b). 

The 2010 Protocol also added (again among other provisions) Article 6 bis, 

which provides that “[u]pon receipt of an application for operating authorisation, 

pursuant to Article 4, from an air carrier of one Party, the aeronautical authorities 

of the other Party shall recognise any fitness and/or citizenship determination 

made by the aeronautical authorities of the first Party . . . as if such a determination had been made by its own aeronautical authorities and not enquire further into 

such matters,” absent “a specific reason for concern that, despite the determination 

made by the aeronautical authorities of the other Party, the conditions prescribed 

in Article 4 of this Agreement for the grant of appropriate authorisations or 

permissions have not been met.” 2010 Protocol art. 2. The 2010 Protocol clarified 

that a “Citizenship determination” is “a finding that an air carrier . . . satisfies the 

requirements of Article 4 regarding its ownership, effective control, and principal 

place of business,” and that a “Fitness determination” is “a finding that an air 

carrier . . . has satisfactory financial capability and adequate managerial expertise 

to operate such services and is disposed to comply with the laws, regulations, and 

requirements that govern the operation of such services.” Id. art. 1 (adding 

Agreement art. 1, ¶¶ 2 bis & 3 bis). 

The United States, the European Union and its Member States, Iceland, and 

Norway later signed an agreement incorporating the provisions of the 2007 ATA 
Interpretation of Article 17 Bis of the US-EU Air Transport Agreement 

5 

and the 2010 Protocol and applying them to Iceland and Norway as if they were 

members of the European Union. See Air Transport Agreement Between the 

United States, European Union and Its Member States, Iceland, and Norway arts. 

1–2, June 16–21, 2011, 2011 O.J. (L 283) 3. 

II. 

In our view, the text of the Agreement, reinforced by its purpose, makes clear 

that Article 17 bis does not provide an independent basis on which to deny an air 

carrier’s application for a permit where the applicant is otherwise qualified to 

receive one under the Agreement. The interpretation of an international agreement 

begins with its text. See Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1, 10 (2010) (“The interpretation of a treaty . . . begins with its text.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Bank 

Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406, 1408 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Executive agreements . . . are interpreted in the same manner as treaties. . . .”); Air Canada v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Transp., 843 F.2d 1483, 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“[We interpret] an 

international executive agreement . . . according to the principles applicable to 

treaties.”); see also Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31(1), opened 

for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 340 (“A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms 

of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.”) (“Vienna 

Convention”); Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 325(1) (1987) 

(“An international agreement is to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with 

the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its 

object and purpose.”). 

As noted above, Article 4 of the Agreement, entitled “Authorization,” sets forth 

the standards under which the Parties to the Agreement grant the authorizations 

and permissions necessary to enable carriers of another Party to operate in their 

jurisdictions. Article 4 provides that “[o]n receipt of applications from an airline of 

one Party, in the form and manner prescribed for operating authorizations and 

technical permissions, the other Party shall grant appropriate authorizations and 

permissions with minimum procedural delay, provided” that three conditions are 

satisfied: first, the airline must be a citizen of an appropriate state; second, the 

airline must be “qualified to meet the conditions prescribed under the laws and 

regulations normally applied to the operation of international air transportation by 

the Party considering the application or applications”; and third, the “provisions 

set forth in Article 8 (Safety) and Article 9 (Security)” must be “maintained and 

administered.” Agreement art. 4. Assuming these conditions are met (as we do for 

purposes of this opinion), the plain terms of Article 4 require the United States to 

grant the “appropriate authorizations and permissions” to the requesting carrier. 

Id.; see id. (if enumerated conditions are met, Parties “shall grant” authorizations 

to carriers of other Parties). 
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 40 

6 

Notably, in contrast to its express references to Articles 8 and 9, Article 4 does 

not mention Article 17 bis, or make compliance with that article a precondition for 

grant of an authorization. The fact that Article 4 explicitly conditions the grant of 

the relevant authorizations or permissions on “the provisions set forth” in Articles 

8 and 9 “being maintained and administered” suggests that the drafters did not 

intend to condition a grant of authorization under Article 4 on the satisfaction of 

Article 17 bis or other unnamed articles. Cf., e.g., 1 Oppenheim’s International 

Law § 633, at 1279 (9th ed. 1992) (“The maxim expressio unius est exclusio 

alterius has been followed in the interpretation of treaties by international 

tribunals in a number of cases . . . .”). Article 4 also does not refer to the “social 

dimension” or “labour standards” discussed in Article 17 bis, or suggest that either 

of these factors may be considered independently of Article 4’s enumerated 

requirements in granting an authorization.4

 Thus, on its face, Article 4 mandates 

that Parties issue appropriate authorizations and permissions to air carriers of other 

Parties once the three specific conditions enumerated in Article 4 are satisfied, and 

none of these conditions references Article 17 bis or the factors it describes. This 

straightforward reading of Article 4 strongly suggests that Article 17 bis does not 

provide an independent basis for denying an air carrier’s application for a permit 

where the carrier is otherwise qualified to receive one under the Agreement. 

It is true that the Agreement does not expressly define the “appropriate authorizations and permissions” that must be granted. Agreement art. 4. In context, 

however, we think it clear that this phrase refers to the authorizations and permissions necessary to enable a foreign air carrier to operate within a particular 

jurisdiction—in the case of the United States, a permit issued by DOT. See 49 

U.S.C. § 41301 (providing that foreign air carrier may provide foreign air 

transportation only if it holds a relevant permit); id. § 41302 (providing Secretary 

of Transportation authority to issue such permits); see also State Legal Analysis 

at 3 (“Article 4 imposes an obligation to issue a permit provided that the criteria in 

Article 4 are met.”); DOT Legal Analysis at 5 (once fitness and safety criteria 

under Agreement are satisfied, “DOT is legally required to grant” a carrier’s 

application to provide services in the United States). The phrase “authorizations 

and permissions” is naturally read to refer back to the “operating authorizations 

and technical permissions” mentioned earlier in the same sentence; i.e., the kinds 

of authorizations and permissions necessary to “operat[e]” an airline in the 

relevant jurisdiction. See Agreement art. 4 (“On receipt of applications from an 

airline of one Party, in the form and manner prescribed for operating authorizations and technical permissions, the other Party shall grant appropriate authorizations and permissions with minimum procedural delay . . . .”). 

 4

 Because we assume that Article 4’s enumerated requirements are satisfied, we do not consider 

whether the principles discussed in Article 17 bis could ever be relevant in determining whether those 

requirements are met. 
Interpretation of Article 17 Bis of the US-EU Air Transport Agreement 

7 

The term “appropriate,” considered in isolation, might be taken to indicate that 

the Parties retain the discretion to deny authorizations or permissions if they 

conclude that issuing them would be “[in]appropriate,” a reading that might 

suggest that the considerations set forth in Article 17 bis could independently be 

taken into account in deciding whether to issue a permit. In context, however, this 

is an implausible reading of that term. E. Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 534 

(1991) (“[W]e begin with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written 

words are used.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As noted above, Article 4 

mandates that authorizations and permissions be granted “with minimum procedural delay, provided” that certain conditions are satisfied. Agreement art. 4. It 

then enumerates and describes each condition, and subsequent articles discuss in 

great detail the specific requirements and procedures related to safety (Article 8) 

and security (Article 9). It would be fundamentally at odds with this explicit 

enumeration for the Parties to have indicated, with a single open-ended adjective 

inserted outside the enumerated list of conditions, that the Parties were also free to 

deny permits as not “appropriate” for other unspecified reasons. Cf. Whitman v. 

Am. Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001) (“Congress . . . does not, one might 

say, hide elephants in mouseholes.”). It is far more natural in context—and far 

more consistent with the text of Article 4 and the rest of the Agreement—to read 

the phrase “appropriate authorizations and permissions” to refer to those particular authorizations and permissions a carrier needs to operate in a specific jurisdiction. Agreement art. 4 (emphasis added). The Agreement gives qualified carriers 

of each Party the opportunity to offer services in the jurisdiction of any other 

Party, provided the listed conditions are met. Id. The specific authorizations and 

permissions necessary for them to do so may vary according to each Party’s 

relevant laws and regulations. Referring to “appropriate authorizations and 

permissions” is a convenient way to capture, in a single phrase, whatever authorizations and permissions a carrier needs in a given jurisdiction to enable it to 

provide services consistent with the Agreement. Cf. United Sav. Ass’n of Tex. v. 

Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) (“A provision that 

may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the 

statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings produces a 

substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”). 

The text of Article 17 bis likewise fails to suggest that it provides a basis for 

denying a permit if the requirements referenced in Article 4 are satisfied. Paragraph 1 of Article 17 bis provides that the Parties “recognise” the importance of 

the social dimension of the Agreement “and the benefits that arise when open 

markets are accompanied by high labour standards,” and then states that “[t]he 

opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labour 

standards or the labour-related rights and principles contained in the Parties’ 

respective laws.” Agreement art. 17 bis, ¶ 1. Paragraph 1 is thus, on its face, 

simply a statement of the Parties’ recognitions and intentions, and does not create 

any affirmative rights, obligations, or authorities. Paragraph 2 explains that the 
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 40 

8 

“principles in paragraph 1 shall guide the Parties as they implement the Agreement, including regular consideration by the Joint Committee, pursuant to Article 

18, of the social effects of the Agreement and the development of appropriate 

responses to concerns found to be legitimate.” Id. ¶ 2. DOT suggests that this 

provision is “essentially hortatory,” and that the statement that the principles in 

paragraph 1 “shall guide” the Parties’ implementation of the Agreement does not 

impose any obligation on the Parties. DOT Legal Analysis at 5. The State 

Department suggests that, under paragraph 2, if a Party had “concerns about some 

aspect of labor rights regarding its own implementation or the implementation of 

the Agreement by another Party,” the Party “could consider on its own what, if 

any, action is appropriate (and consistent with the Agreement) or could potentially 

raise the issue with some or all other Parties.” Id. But, in State’s view, paragraph 2 

“does not authorize actions that would run counter to express legal obligations of 

the Parties under other provisions of the Agreement—such as the obligation at 

issue here, to grant a permit where Article 4’s requirements are satisfied.” Id. “In 

that context,” State explains, “[p]aragraph (2) at most provides for the Joint 

Committee to consider labor-related concerns raised by the Parties . . . .” Id. We 

need not attempt to determine the precise meaning of paragraph 2, because in our 

view, no plausible reading of that provision would provide a basis for denying a 

permit to an air carrier otherwise qualified under Article 4. As explained above, 

once the requirements enumerated in Article 4 are satisfied, Article 4 does not 

leave the Parties with any discretion to deny a permit, or to condition the grant of a 

permit on requirements that are not enumerated or referenced in Article 4 itself. 

See supra pp. 5–7. Thus, even if Article 17 bis were read more expansively than 

DOT or State suggests, as not simply authorizing but also requiring the Parties to 

take all possible actions consistent with the Agreement to respond to labor 

concerns whenever feasible, such actions could not include denying a permit when 

the requirements of Article 4 are met, because the Agreement does not allow the 

Parties to take such an action.5

This conclusion is reinforced by the amendment history of the Agreement. 

Article 17 bis was added to the Agreement in 2010. If the drafters had intended 

Article 17 bis to affect the permitting process described in Article 4, they could 

have said so expressly. Indeed, they included precisely such a clarification in 

Article 6 bis, which was also added in 2010. Article 6 bis sought to streamline the 

permit approval process in Article 4 by providing that, in many circumstances, 

Parties are required to accept the fitness and citizenship determinations made by 

the aeronautical authorities of other Parties. Consistent with this purpose, Article 6 

bis expressly references Article 4 and makes clear that it is intended to affect the 

way applications under Article 4 are reviewed. See Agreement art. 6 bis (“Upon 

 5

 To be clear, we express no view on whether Article 17 bis can be interpreted in this more expansive manner. 
Interpretation of Article 17 Bis of the US-EU Air Transport Agreement 

9 

receipt of an application for operating authorisation, pursuant to Article 4, from an 

air carrier of one Party, the aeronautical authorities of the other Party shall 

recognise any fitness and/or citizenship determination made by the aeronautical 

authorities of the first Party . . . as if such a determination had been made by its 

own aeronautical authorities and not enquire further into such matters,” with 

certain limited exceptions.). This express reference to Article 4 suggests that when 

the drafters of the 2010 amendments intended the new provisions in the Agreement to affect the implementation of Article 4, they said so explicitly. Article 17 

bis, however, does not mention Article 4. Nor does it expressly indicate—as other 

articles do—that it is intended to override other provisions in the Agreement. Cf. 

Agreement art. 6 (“Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, the 

Parties shall implement the provisions of Annex 4 in their decisions under their 

respective laws and regulations concerning ownership, investment and control.”); 

id. art. 10, ¶ 10 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement . . . .”); 

id. annex 1, § 3 (“Notwithstanding Article 3 of this Agreement . . . .”). Thus, like 

the text of Article 4, the text of Article 17 bis fails to indicate that it provides any 

basis for denying a permit if the requirements in Article 4 are satisfied. 

This conclusion is also consistent with the general purposes of the Agreement. 

See, e.g., Abbott, 560 U.S. at 9–10 (noting that treaty interpretation inquiry is 

shaped by, inter alia, the text and purposes of the treaty); id. at 28–29, 46 

(Stevens, J., dissenting) (interpreting treaty by looking to treaty’s text and 

purpose); Application of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to the Former 

Panama Canal Zone, 5 Op. O.L.C. 80, 81 (1981) (“Panama Canal Opinion”) 

(noting that “[t]reaties are to be construed with the highest good faith with an eye 

to the manifest meaning of the whole treaty,” and construing provisions “consistently and in keeping with the purpose of the Treaty” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)); Vienna Convention art. 31(1), 1155 U.N.T.S. at 340. The State 

Department, which led the negotiation of the Agreement on behalf of the United 

States, has indicated that “[t]he central purpose of the Agreement was to increase 

opportunities to provide air services between the Parties.” State Legal Analysis 

at 4; see also Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184–85 (1982) 

(negotiating agency’s views get “great weight”); Panama Canal Opinion, 5 Op. 

O.L.C. at 82 (“In interpreting a treaty and other international agreements, the 

construction placed upon it by the Department charged with supervision of our 

foreign relations should be given much weight.”). This view is confirmed by the 

preamble of the Agreement, which states that, in entering into the Agreement, the 

Parties desired “to promote an international aviation system based on competition 

among airlines in the marketplace with minimum government interference and 

regulation,” and intended to “open[] access to markets and maximiz[e] benefits for 

consumers, airlines, labor, and communities on both sides of the Atlantic.” 2007 

ATA pmbl. at 4–6; see also 2010 Protocol pmbl. at 4 (noting that Parties intended 

“to build upon the framework established by [the 2007 ATA], with the goal of 

opening access to markets and maximising benefits for consumers, airlines, 
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 40 

10 

labour, and communities on both sides of the Atlantic”). The purpose of promoting 

open access by airlines of one Party to the markets of the other Parties is served by 

the clear procedures set forth in Article 4, which limit each Party’s discretion to 

deny permits to carriers of the other Parties, thereby ensuring that government 

interference with competition is “minim[ized].” To be sure, benefits to labor were 

relevant to the Parties and explicitly mentioned in the preamble, but these 

references, read in light of the preamble as a whole, suggest only that the Parties 

believed benefits to labor were among the benefits that flowed from open access to 

markets. See generally Agreement pmbl.; see also 2010 Protocol art. 6 (“The 

Parties commit to the shared goal of continuing to remove market access barriers 

in order to maximise benefits for consumers, airlines, labour, and communities on 

both sides of the Atlantic . . . .” (emphasis added)).6

 

Finally, we also considered whether a provision concerning Article 17 bis in 

the current DOT appropriations bill, which is identical to a provision in the 

previous year’s bill, alters our analysis. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. L, § 413, 129 Stat. 2242 (Dec. 18, 2015); 

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-

235, div. K, § 415, 128 Stat. 2130, 2765 (2014). That provision states that “[n]one 

of the funds made available by this Act may be used to approve a new foreign air 

carrier permit . . . or exemption application . . . of an air carrier already holding an 

air operators certificate issued by a country that is party to the [Agreement] where 

such approval would contravene United States law or Article 17 bis” of the 

Agreement. Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 413(a). It then clarifies that “[n]othing in this 

section shall prohibit, restrict or otherwise preclude the Secretary of Transportation from granting a foreign air carrier permit or an exemption to such an air 

carrier where such authorization is consistent with the [Agreement] and United 

States law.” Id. § 413(b). Whatever the meaning or effect of this provision as a 

matter of domestic law, it does not affect our interpretation of the Agreement 

itself. As discussed above, the text of the Agreement is clear. The Departments of 

State and Transportation—the principal government entities involved in negotiating and implementing the Agreement on behalf of the United States—agree that 

Article 17 bis does not provide an independent basis upon which a Party to the 

Agreement may deny an application for a permit from an otherwise qualified 

 6

 Because we conclude that the text of the Agreement is clear, and consistent with the central 

purpose of the Agreement, we need not inquire into the negotiating history. Cf. Chan v. Korean Air 

Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 134 (1989) (“We must . . . be governed by the text . . . whatever conclusions 

might be drawn from the intricate drafting history . . . . The latter may of course be consulted to 

elucidate a text that is ambiguous. But where the text is clear, as it is here, we have no power to insert 

an amendment.” (citations omitted)); see also Vienna Convention art. 32, 1155 U.N.T.S. at 340. 

Nevertheless, the State Department has informed us that it “believes that the negotiating history of the 

treaty confirms the conclusion that Article 17 bis does not constitute a basis for a Party to unilaterally 

deny a permit to an otherwise qualified carrier of another Party.” State Legal Analysis at 4. 
Interpretation of Article 17 Bis of the US-EU Air Transport Agreement 

11 

carrier, and those views are entitled to great weight. See Avagliano, 457 U.S. at 

184–85 (“Although not conclusive, the meaning attributed to treaty provisions by 

the Government agencies charged with their negotiation and enforcement is 

entitled to great weight.”); Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 194 (1961) (“[T]he 

meaning given to [treaties] by the departments of government particularly charged 

with their negotiation and enforcement is given great weight.”). And in any event, 

we do not read the DOT appropriations provision as purporting to alter the 

meaning of the Agreement itself. 

III. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Article 17 bis does not provide an 

independent basis upon which the United States may deny a permit to an air 

carrier of a Party to the Agreement if that carrier is otherwise qualified to receive 

such a permit. 

 KARL R. THOMPSON 

 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

 Office of Legal Counsel